Archives for category: resilience

Journal of resilience

A new publication to announce.  But first, some background…

A while ago, I started noticing that the word ‘design’ and the concept of ‘design thinking’ seemed to be everywhere. I wondered if it was just me – but I was particularly struck that I so often seemed to hear the word ‘design’ used in contexts where I expect to hear about ‘plans’ and ‘planning’. I slowly got the sense that we seem collectively unwilling to assert our ability to shape the future – but, at the same time, I wasn’t sure quite why we are so keen to be ‘designing’ things instead. Why now? I realised in any case that I didn’t really understand what ‘design’ meant.

Problematically, there seemed to be no widely accepted overall theory of design to turn to. Or, rather, there were lots of individual perspectives on the subject, often related to particular areas of design practice. And most of these seemed to claim that theorising design as a whole is not possible.

Following on from that, I and some colleagues organised an exploratory conference on the topic of ‘Design after Planning’ last year  It went rather well overall (and you can watch some of the videos here), but it threw up more questions than it answered.  So, I started slowly reading up on design theory, and have now pulled together some of my thoughts in the introduction of a ‘forum’ on Resilience and Design, published today in the journal Resilience.

The introduction is followed by four short essays, by Clive Barnett, Tania Katzschner, Nate Tkacz, and Filip De Boeck, each touching on design-related issues in different ways. The abstract and table of contents are shown below.

The forum as a whole is rather like a collection of papers in a conference panel: loosely connected rather than prepared in close collaboration.  But we hope this approach will be generative of new thinking and connections, rather than seem incoherent. An experiment, at least.

If you’d like to read the publication, but can’t access it, please get in touch so that I can send you a copy.

 

Cowley, R., Barnett, C., Katzschner, T., Tkacz, N. & De Boeck, F. (2017). Forum: Resilience & Design.  Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses. Advance online version, DOI: 10.1080/21693293.2017.1348506

 

Abstract:

This forum aims to encourage theorists of resilience to engage more closely with different aspects of design theory and practice. The introduction outlines a series of largely unacknowledged parallels between resilience and design, relating to the valorisation of processes over states, the loss of faith in ‘planning’, the ambivalent status of boundaries and interfaces, and open-ended political possibilities. Four short reflections then follow on various design-related topics: the significance of the ‘wicked problem’ in contemporary urban planning and design, and the urbanisation of responsibility; design’s potential to repoliticise and engender new forms of responsibility; the significance of the digital interface; and the condition of everyday life in the ‘unplanned’ post-colonial city. Readers are invited to build on or refute the explicit and implicit links made between resilience and design in the various forum contributions.

 

Contents:

 

Resilience and design: an introduction

Robert Cowley (Department of Geography, King’s College London)

 

Planning as design in the Wicked City

Clive Barnett (Department of Geography, University of Exeter)

 

Design, responsibility and ‘Staying with the Trouble’: rethinking urban conservation in Cape Town

Tania Katzschner (School of Architecture, Planning & Geomatics, University of Cape Town)

 

In a world of data signals, resilience is subsumed into a design paradigm

Nathaniel Tkacz (Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, University of Warwick)

 

‘The Hole of the World’: designing possibility through topography in Congo’s urban settings

Filip de Boeck (Institute for Anthropological Research in Africa, KU Leuven)

 

London, 14 July 2017

View of Aswan

Aswan

I’ve spent most of the last week at a workshop on ‘Rebuilding Communities for Resilient and Sustainable Development’ in Aswan (Egypt).  A marvellous event – many thanks to all involved in organising it.

So then: resilient and sustainable… Does it matter that these two terms seem to have become inseparable? That sustainability even seems to be increasingly playing second fiddle to resilience?

Policy-makers at least seem happy enough to speak of resilience and sustainability in the same breath. One of our first workshop exercises, however, was to think more closely about how they differ and relate to each other. Our group contrasted the two concepts in terms of time (sustainability as linear; resilience as iterative) and space (sustainability as extensive and global; resilience as inward-looking and local). We agreed that their relationship is not so much hierarchical (with one perhaps being a necessary condition for the other), as fundamentally characterised by mutual tension.

This tension is reflected in their different registers of societal organisation: while sustainability has always been oriented towards state-centric solutions, resilience looks more to ‘bottom-up’ agency. Depending on your perspective, then, resilience usefully fills a gap in the discourse of sustainability; or its rise can be read as problematic evidence of the ongoing ‘roll-back’ of the state. In any case, abandoning the ideal of sustainability in favour of resilience seems uncomfortably close to relinquishing the hope that our formal institutions of representative democracy can ever be revived.

While I tend towards hoping that our institutional democratic life can be revived, I also wonder if this type of ‘anti-neoliberal’ perspective is rather parochial. What does it really mean in places where there is no general assumption, or expectation – or illusion – that the state somehow ‘stands above’ the messy informality of everyday life? Where the state is clearly demarcated from the public only in terms of its elitism or authoritarian capacities? If Egypt falls into this category of place, it is certainly not unique; informal processes seem to dominate the conduct of everyday urban life around the world, including – to an extent not always recognised – in western countries. In fact, I would argue that the question of how sustainability policy-making might better encompass informality is a key one.

By ‘encompassing informality’, I don’t mean just improving living conditions for the marginalised or reducing ‘corruption’. Rather, I argue that there is a need for more direct acknowledgement in sustainability planning that real cities are held together by informal relations, and characterised by unpredictable, emergent and often transgressive public behaviour, as much as by compliance with formal regulations and dominant norms.

However, I’m not certain that this need is satisfied by the ways in which informality has been embraced in recent years as a source of inspiration for policy-makers and built environment professionals (ranging from the romanticisation of the self-organising principles of the slum through to the rise of ‘crowdsourcing’ in the west, and the adulation of ‘swarm’ or ‘hive’ intelligence). In practice, such thinking typically seems normatively underpinned by a goal of efficiency which necessarily excludes predetermined definitions of right and wrong. There would seem to be only a fine line between taking inspiration from informality on the one hand, and purposefully slumifying our collective future on the other.

 

Aswan, 16 December 2015

 

 

Design after planning

Might it be possible to go beyond the limitations of liberal-modernist policy-making and urban planning if we start thinking of governance at different scales as a process of design?

If you find this sort of question interesting, you may want to consider submitting an abstract for a one-day interdisciplinary conference we’re holding at the University of Westminster on Friday 5 February, 2016.

We have three confirmed keynote speakers – Filip De Boeck (KU Leuven), Nathaniel Tkacz (University of Warwick) and Erik Swyngedouw (University of Manchester), and plan to have three panels on:

  • disaster and risk design
  • designing with emergent urban systems
  • resilience versus sustainability

To find out more, or to sign up for updates, please visit the event website.

We have not yet released tickets for the event, but there will be no charge for attending (or registration fee for speakers).

London, 5 November 2015

UPDATE 5 APRIL 2016:  videos from this event are now online: https://designafterplanning.wordpress.com/videos/

 

self-build

‘Post World’s End Architecture’ 

Let’s build our own houses!  I find it strange that there isn’t more of this in the UK – especially as it’s so common in other countries. Of course, I have no idea how to build a house.  But, for various practical and theoretical reasons, I think it’s exactly what should be happening at the moment. Self-build seems to be very well aligned with so many other tendencies in the way the state wants to govern us, and our own expectations of how things should happen in society. In its own small way, furthermore, it may help shape the contours of the as yet unimaginable world to come.

To make my case, I’m going to begin with a lengthy diversion.  My starting point is that there seem to be big structural changes afoot in the world.  We seem to be developing a new sensibility about our place on the planet. As the world gets ever more interconnected, and change accelerates, its very complexity appears to be overwhelming us; we no longer feel we understand what causes what.  Our liberal institutions of governance don’t really know how to respond to problems that they struggle to define.  We sense that they are no longer up to the job, and that some kind of fundamental change is in the air.  We have a sense of impending catastrophe (of which we have so far only had a foretaste), but have little idea of what will come afterwards. The certainties of the modern world have long since dissolved, but we still look for ‘leaders’ and ‘plans’ to ‘take us forwards’.

I’m really talking about what seems to be the beginning of the end of the ideal of the ‘liberal state’. Liberalism is, after all, only a fairly recent ideal.  I see it as essentially describing a clear division between the limits of state authority and the ‘private’ world lying beyond; the state established to protect private interests, but with no right to intervene in these, such that, fundamentally, “any form of liberalism must be concerned with the freedom of the individual” (Graham, 1992). The liberal state makes a particular effort to protect the autonomy of the private property owner, through an elaborate legal and institutional apparatus. The market is valorised as emancipating humans from the dominance which characterised older feudal models of social organisation; in classical economics, the market thus appears as an ordre naturel (Habermas, 1989:79).

But aren’t we now in a ‘neoliberal’ world? Yes – although I accept that the term is typically used as a form of abuse (Hartwich, 2009), I understand neoliberalism as referring to a series of tendencies over the last few decades, which constituted a reaction to the expansion of the state in the post-WWII period – what Jessop (2002) calls the ‘Keynesian welfare national state’ (KWNS).  The nineteenth century liberal laissez-faire model had appeared to lead to cycles of boom and bust, with disastrous social consequences internationally; KWNS aimed to curb these excesses by expanding the role of the state. By the 1970s, however, this approach didn’t seem to work too well either (the alternative, as adopted in the Soviet bloc, of expanding the state even further, and denying the private sphere altogether, seemed worse still).  Neoliberal thinking was then raised to prominence. This involved shrinking the state, in an attempt to facilitate the workings of the ‘distributed intelligence’ of the unfettered market – an idea usually associated with Friedrich Hayek (1945). That’s the theory at least; in practice, the state hasn’t been shrunk so much as become “selectively active” (Connolly, 2013:21). It “takes a very active role in creating, maintaining, and protecting the preconditions of market self-regulation” (ibid.). The uneven application of neoliberal thinking has been characterised by various types of interventions which may have benefited certain groups more than others (see, for example: Crouch, 2011). The term ‘neoliberalism’ has come to be used more or less interchangeably with the idea of ‘the interests of big business’, or to suggest the ideological work done to conceal these interests.

But whether we understand neoliberalism as a coherent approach to managing our societies, or an ideology, or a set of practices, its potency and legitimacy seems increasingly undermined by various outcomes in the real world: we vaguely sense that we are facing some kind of looming environmental crisis (our uncertainty is such that this is even widely denied); rather than greater efficiencies in markets, we seem to face an ever growing disparity of wealth; and the recent economic crisis questions the ability of this approach even to defend the interests of the establishment.  Our institutions, and the core principles upon which they rest, are still liberal ones; but they now need to find a new way of protecting themselves.

The new policy discourse of ‘resilience’ seems to be closely connected to this project. David Chandler (2014) interprets resilience – as mobilised by policy makers – as a way not just of setting preconditions for markets and other complex spheres to work by themselves, unfettered by the state, but actually to bring this complexity into governance. In other words, “governance is no longer a matter of intervening in an external problematic but of self-reflexive understandings of entanglement” (5). I would argue that this attempt is somehow futile: we might expect unruly creative forces of unpredictable complexity to be welcomed only up to the point where they begin to suggest the possibility of radical transformation. Paradoxically, then, the transformative potential of the complex ‘outside’ seems to be limited precisely to the extent that it is institutionalised.  Furthermore, I am not convinced that we – as citizens in the complex private world that is out there – necessarily react well to attempts to institutionalise our complexity in this way.  Governments can’t take our compliance for granted. We didn’t like David Cameron’s idea of the ‘Big Society’ much, after all.

stop calling me resilient

There are alternative takes on resilience which highlight its potential as a force of transformation outside the state; that its decentralised concept of power suggests a way of resisting the state; that it provides a way for communities to turn their back on neoliberal globalisation (see, for example, the Transition Network); or that the idea needs to be rescued from ‘neoliberal capital’ (Nelson, 2014).  Meanwhile, and not unrelatedly, Occupy London adopted Hayek’s idea that “distributed intelligence in a voluntary co-operative is a hallmark of a real economy”, claiming that “we work more like a market than business does” (Occupy, 2012). There seems to be a problem, then, that the liberal, centralised state is by definition incompatible with decentralised emergent transformation. It seem unclear how it can bring this distributed ‘DIY’ intelligence into its fold without undermining itself.

At this point, we could overlay Zygmunt Bauman’s (1991) understanding of the nature of modernity.  For him, modernity is all about the endless attempt to classify, to delineate the orderly from the chaotic which lies ‘outside’ – the stranger, the ‘other’ (whose otherness defines the ‘inside’).  This attempt is futile because the chaos beyond always returns to challenge the categorisation; this creates ‘ambivalence’, anathema to the modern mind, but spurring it into further ‘legislatory’ action. But the newer governance approaches I’m hinting at seem to invite the stranger into the house – on a temporary basis – while still attempting to regulate the stranger’s behaviour.  But a still centralised liberal government makes for an unhappy bedfellow with the decentralised potency of the outside; the invitation looks rather like an act of desperation at a time when all other defensive strategies seem to have run their course, and our faith in the institutions of our ‘political economy’ seems to be dissolving year by year.

The implications of inviting this unruly stranger in are hinted at in Marc Stears’ contribution to a recent report by the UK’s Institute for Public Policy Research (Cooke & Muir, 2012). He is responding to an essay by Geoff Mulgan, who calls for a new type of ‘Relational State’ to replace expectations of the ‘delivery state’. Here, Mulgan seems to be elaborating on the idea, outlined in an earlier report, of ‘Social Innovation’, which is “all around us” (Mulgan et al., 2007:4), often unrecognised and even stifled by the state, but which the state should encourage within its policy making. Mulgan suggests that social innovation often occurs among hybrid groupings of social actors, and is therefore

not unique to the non-profit sector. It can be driven by politics and government (for example, new models of public health), markets (for example, open-source software or organic food), movements (for example, fair trade), and academia (for example, pedagogical modes of childcare), as well as social enterprises (microcredit and magazines for the homeless)” (ibid.:4-5).

Stears, however, counters that “The state…is unlikely ever to be the primary agent of a relational revolution. The primary agents will lie outside. They will be those who pressurise the state, who make demands of it, who are unwilling to be told what to do” (Cooke & Muir, 2012:43).

Mulgan’s reference to ‘open-sourcing’ is significant. The media heralded this new mode of software development in the early 2000s as a revolutionary approach to business management, confounding assumptions that effective action depends on hierarchy and, as a type of ‘gift economy’, challenging the dominant self-interest economics paradigm (which fails to explain why would people voluntarily contribute).  Wikipedia is often cited as an example of collaborative knowledge made possible in a similar horizontal way, though for non-commercial purposes. Thrift (2008) suggests that the idea of open-source programming has inspired various other business approaches; he points to the growth of ‘user-centric innovation’, blurring the distinction between consumption and production, including the encouragement of online feedback and discussion forums where “interchange takes place around a co-created commodity experience” (42), and “consumer communities” (41) evolve, beyond a company’s control. He sees information technology as acting “as a system of distributed cognition which is also a means of capturing new potential” (43).

I was interested to read an article (Lerner & Tirole, 2001:819) which concluded that, actually, the open-source approach is “relatively well accounted for by standard economic theory” (821). Similarly, it can be argued that Wikipedia is not free of hierarchy and regulation; it is in fact rather prescriptive in the way knowledge can be structured and framed, and in the types of knowledge that are allowed.   And yet there is still something curious going on here: why have these new decentralised, internet-facilitated approaches captured so many people’s attention?

Why, I wonder, do I hear of new restaurants opening in London by being first ‘beta tested’; their menus are first developed and refined at small market stalls (Courier, 2014). Perhaps there’s nothing new here (it’s really just a sort of ‘pilot test’) – and yet, again, they are borrowing the language of computing. There is something in the idea (or at least the edgy potential) of open-sourcing that seems to have inspired us.  It contains the scent of an as yet poorly understood mode of social and political being, where older notions of government and governed – and even ‘governance’ – make little sense.

A wide variety of other ‘open-sourced’, ‘crowdsourced’ and ‘crowdfunded’ initiatives seem to have taken inspiration.  Some of these clearly take the form of resistance movements. I read of ‘open-sourced agriculture’, for example. But others are initiated by government institutions. A couple of years ago, just to take one example, Camden Council (in London) held a competition asking for ideas for spaces underused at certain times; the proposals received in response were themselves generally DIY projects. This is markedly different from a council simply deciding ‘on behalf’ of the people, or just reacting to public opinion: it represents an active attempt to tap into bottom-up thinking. Nobody is really talking about ‘rolling back the state’ here: it’s all about temporary decentralisation of power, letting things emerge from the bottom up in unpredictable ways.

In my own research, I’ve been looking at the EcoDistricts initiative in Portland, Oregon (USA). This aimed to explore the idea of making neighbourhood units sustainable – as a stepping stone to the as yet poorly understood concept of transitioning a whole city to sustainability. Their idea was to provide seed funding for groups of key actors in 5 locations across the city to develop their own ideas – without predefining the types of goals they would set, who precisely would be involved, or how they would govern themselves.  By tapping into this bottom-up innovation, they planned to see what worked and what didn’t, reflect on it, and they try to apply the results elsewhere in the city.  Whether or not this will succeed, it represents a rather novel way of governing for change – a long way from experts or representatives deciding things in rooms in city hall – but neither simply expressing the goal to simply let things be decided by some idealised notion of the ‘market’.

This new approach to political action even affects questions at the heart of statehood. I recently went to a talk about constitution making, by Eirikur Bergmann.  He suggested that the recent ‘crowdsourced’ (though as yet unadopted) constitution in Iceland was typical of new wave of projects variously related to fundamental principles of how the state should operate, in countries including Canada, Belgium, Holland, Australia, Ireland, and Estonia.  A student I’m teaching, meanwhile, wants to look at the process through which the new Hungarian constitution (2012) was created.  This has been received badly by many in Hungary specifically because many citizens feel excluded from its development.  Now, I would imagine that constitutions throughout history have been written by ‘experts’, politicians and presidents – they wouldn’t have brought laypeople into the equation throughout the process (except perhaps via the odd referendum at the end).  The interesting thing, then, is that the people now expect to be included – exactly at the time that we seem to be losing confidence in our representative institutions of governance.

At international level, too, something analogous seems to be going on, again in a slightly confused way.  I heard two papers recently by my colleagues Elisa Randazzo and Pol Barguès Pedreny, about newer approaches to post-conflict statebuilding. These approaches aim not to predefine particular outcomes or directions so much as to encourage a context-sensitive ongoing adaptive process.  And yet, Elisa argued, this new approach reveals itself in many ways still to be stuck in a liberal mindset, in its valorisation of ‘change’, ‘emancipation’, and so on. There seemed to be little disagreement in the audience that we hadn’t advanced beyond a type of ‘liberalism in disguise’.

Of course, I’m most interested in thinking about cities of the future. I’m looking forward to an event later this year at the University of Greenwich, at which the idea of ‘Reflexive Urbanism’ will be launched. This “proposes that cities of the future are not made but evolved”.  The blurb explains that Reflexive Urbanism “works with the messiness of cities, their vibrant natures and their inherent subversion, to identify new solutions for the practice of the built environment in a resource constrained world.”  The idea, then, of working with ‘messiness’, rather than treating this as the enemy without, or hopelessly trying to tap into its power from the centre.  So what? You might dismiss this as just some kind of academic conference – and yet academics often explore ideas which are still only on the periphery of general understanding – they look out for this kind of thing.

Anyway, if we’re thinking about how to design our cities of the future, then part of the task must be an openness to innovations in our living arrangements. Housing, in terms of units and how they relate to each other, might be very different in ways we can’t yet imagine. Will we live more communally?  Will housing be modular, or movable? Might the ideas of the ‘house’ or ‘flat’ even become redundant?  New innovations here won’t necessarily come from politicians – or from large firms of housebuilders constrained by market pressures and conservative by default. Perhaps they are more likely to come from individuals, and novel combinations of individuals and experts, doing it for themselves.

Provision of housing in the UK is currently seen as problematic.  While the government has good political reasons to encourage more housing to be built, and doesn’t seem to have abandoned the quintessentially liberal idea that the protection of private property rights is at the very heart of the state’s purpose, it seems undecided about how exactly this might be achieved through existing institutional mechanisms. The shortage of (affordable) housing is widely understood to be a social problem; we might see housing as a public good – the right to shelter is, after all, recognised as a human right – and yet it is developed and then bought and sold in markets. Since we know that ‘open-sourced’ approaches seem to work well when market success is our criterion, then this would seem like a good sphere of life in which to launch an experiment. By encouraging localised innovation, and a sense of personal agency, investment, and creativity, the state would meet its citizens’ growing expectations of decentralised involvement, without appearing to be abnegating its responsibilities, as well as potentially achieve a series of political goals in its own defence.  Who, in other words, would object?

Over a decade ago, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Barlow et al., 2001) found that self-build was growing over time, but tended to be in non-urban areas, and was the sport of older, wealthier enthusiasts. They also outline the main practical and political barriers, commenting that “the political environment does not favour self-build.  Self-builders are too fragmented to constitute a political force” (32). And yet, they argued, it could have significant economic and environmental benefits, as well as freeing up the housebuilding process, if done properly. And things might be changing. We now have a National Self Build Association (formally launched in 2008); the Government now endorses its ‘self-build portal’ website. Since few individuals have enough knowledge either of construction methods, project management, or planning processes, they now promote the idea of ‘custom build’: hybrid arrangements where individuals work alongside professionals and specialists. And I read that the idea of providing self-builders with relief from the ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ is being debated in Parliament this week.

There are models abroad for how the government might encourage this sort of thing. The most famous is the expanding town of Almere in Holland. Hundreds of plots are available in its Homeruskwartier district.  Infrastructure is provided, and some very broad guidelines are in place – but people are free to build whatever type of house they want, without worrying about planning regulations.  One of the key people behind this initiative comments:

“What I like most is the way people develop their curiosity and skills – they bring ideas and test construction techniques more than any developer would. We don’t insist on sustainability requirements, but it’s amazing how much people just do it themselves” (Collinson, 2011).

almere self-build houses

Homeruskwartier, Almere1

This wouldn’t resolve the paradox at the heart of all such schemes initiated by the state: it represents an attempt to organise from above what Connolly (2013) calls ‘self-organising systems’.  But this might be a good thing for all; while proceeding legitimately within the existing framework and agendas of the liberal state, the process of experimentation may contribute in its own small way to our collective ability to begin imagining whatever it is that lies beyond.

So – get your spades and hammers out.  Build yourself a house to prepare for the future. Unless, that is, you are still hoping that your local council will do it for you.

21 February 2014, London

Notes

1. Sources: Collinson (2011), http://homouscheesecake.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/self-build-almere.html, and wikimedia commons

Thanks to Daniel Tomozeiu and David Chandler for alerting me to the ‘beta-testing’ restaurant model and the Marc Stears essay, respectively.

References

Barlow, J., Jackson, R. & Meikle, J. (2001). Homes to DIY for: The UK’s self-build housing market in the twenty-first century. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chandler, D. (2014). Beyond neoliberalism: resilience, the new art of governing complexity. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses. 2(1):47-63.

Collinson, P. (2011). Self-build: it’s time to go Dutch. The Guardian, 25 November. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/nov/25/self-build-go-dutch&gt;.

Connolly, W. (2013). The Fragility of Things: Self-Organising Processes, Neoliberal Fantasies, and Democratic Action. London: Duke University Press.

Cooke, G. & Muir, R. eds. (2012). The Relational State: How Recognising the Importance of Human Relationships Could Revolutionise the Role of the State. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Courier (2014). The Beta testing model powering food startups. Available from: <http://courierpaper.com/Featured_article.html&gt; [Accessed 19 February 2014].

Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity.

Graham, G. (1992). Liberalism and Democracy. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 9(2):149–160.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Hartwich, O. (2009). Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword (CIS Occasional Paper 114). St Leonards, NSW: Centre for Independent Studies. Available from: <http://www.ort.edu.uy/facs/boletininternacionales/contenidos/68/neoliberalism68.pdf&gt;.

Hayek, F.A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, XXXV:519–530.

Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective. Antipode, 34:452–72.

Lerner, J. & Tirole, J. (2001). The open source movement: Key research questions. European Economic Review, 45(4–6):819–826.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Be Accelerated. Oxford: Oxford Said Business School/The Young Foundation.

Nelson, S.H. (2014). Resilience and the neoliberal counter-revolution: from ecologies of control to production of the common. Resilience, 2(1):1–17.

Occupy (2012). How Hayek helped us to find capitalism’s flaws. Financial Times, 25 January.

Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: space │politics│affect. Abingdon: Routledge.

%d bloggers like this: